Diablo 3 - Reviews and More

That might sound a little bit grim, but I think it encapsulates both the end product, as well as the core gameplay that the franchise has built itself around. Diablo III is a colossally polished title, that much is clear upon even just a few minutes hacking and slashing through monsters, but it's also one which is never really able to live up to its potential, just as most players who ever pick it up will be able to fully conquer Inferno difficulty.

So, while it might be an exceptionally pretty and expansive game, with more art assets, loot tiers, skill and stat combinations than most other titles on the market today, Diablo III is also unfulfilling, like a sugary snack - it never leaves you feeling satisfied, only wanting more, whether that's more loot, a more competently executed story, or a more interesting character system. For many players, it's that desire to run endlessly on the progress treadmill that will keep them going, and the experience will no doubt be flashy, pretty, and fun, but even so, Diablo III simply left wanting. For a game with a decade in development, I have to wonder if it was ultimately harmed by so many years in the making - perhaps we'd be playing Diablo V by now, as well.

We'd like to take a moment to address the recent reports that suggested that Battle.net® and Diablo® III may have been compromised. Historically, the release of a new game -- such as a World of Warcraft® expansion -- will result in an increase in reports of individual account compromises, and that's exactly what we're seeing now with Diablo III. We know how frustrating it can be to become the victim of account theft, and as always, we're dedicated to doing everything we can to help our players keep their Battle.net accounts safe -- and we appreciate everyone who's doing their part to help protect their accounts as well. You can read about ways to help keep your account secure, along with some of the internal and external measures we have in place to help us achieve our security goals, at our account security website here: www.battle.net/security.
We also wanted to reassure you that the Battle.net Authenticator and Battle.net Mobile Authenticator (a free app for iPhone and Android devices) continue to be some of the most effective measures we offer to help players protect themselves against account compromises, and we encourage everyone to take advantage of them. In addition, we also recently introduced a new service called Battle.net SMS Protect, which allows you to use your text-enabled cell phone to unlock a locked Battle.net account, recover your account name, approve a password reset, or remove a lost Authenticator. Optionally, you can set up the Battle.net SMS Protect system to send you a text message whenever unusual activity is detected on your account, keeping you aware of important (and possibly unwanted) changes.

Originally Posted by borcanu
what do the watch users say ? give your own score . I refused playing it after watching streams with it. so I'm N/A

Too early to judge for me - I haven't experience the 'end game' of max level so don't know how valid the skills/equipment concerns are. At the moment, if this is the kind of game you like and you intend to play it with friends or strangers then at least 8.5/10. If you're not especially into aRPGs or are looking for a solo game then perhaps 7/10.

I'm not normally into aRPGs, but the wife and I were looking forward to gaming together on something like this and for £20 it's hit the spot very well.

Originally Posted by kalniel
At the moment, if this is the kind of game you like and you intent to play it with friends or strangers then at least 8.5/10. If you're not especially into aRPGs or are looking for a solo game then perhaps 7/10.

Sounds about right to me. Biggest complaints being the superficiality of character creation (no skill trees, can't manipulate attributes etc) and the loot being pretty unimpressive, also pointless multiplayer problems (like server maintenance) affecting solo play combined with other standrd arpg problems (like crap plot and it's REALLY short main campaign, something that was also a part of diablo 2 but it's been 12 years since then) means that if you were scoring the game for single player gaming, it's hard to give it anything more than a 7 or 8.

Originally Posted by kalniel
You suspect the game might actually be quite good?

Can the game be reviewed independently of the DRM? If the DRM is impacting negatively on gameplay, as lots of people have reported, I would say not and that review scores ought to be reduced accordingly.

Originally Posted by coaster
Can the game be reviewed independently of the DRM? If the DRM is impacting negatively on gameplay, as lots of people have reported, I would say not and that review scores ought to be reduced accordingly.

It's a tricky question. Do you make allowances for the early days of something and write a review which people will read some days after the event on the assumption the experience will be better, or do you write about what you perceive today? If I were a professional journalist I'd try to do both to some extent (the role of 'first impressions' articles), but I'd also base it on what knowledge I had of the studio and their ability to fix things.

If you play the game now you are unlikely to notice any negative impact of DRM. Were the reviewers who gave it high scores right to predict that? It seems so, and writing a review that looks back on things that have since been fixed would be seen as outdated.

On the other hand, if DRM was still causing problems then yes, they'd look stupid, their reputation would be tarnished and you'd trust them a little less next time. That's just how it works.

Yeah but what is the appropriate deduction for always on? Starcraft 2 had always on, but I loved that damn game (despite the crappy plot). I can't see giving SC2 less than a 9. Honestly, I agree with kalniel. 8'5 if you like multiplayer. 7-8 otherwise, depending on how you see the genre.

Originally Posted by killias2
Yeah but what is the appropriate deduction for always on? Starcraft 2 had always on, but I loved that damn game (despite the crappy plot). I can't see giving SC2 less than a 9.

You really thought SC2 was that good? The original Starcraft was my favorite RTS game for a long time, but I was pretty disappointed by SC2 considering how long it was in development.

Of course my opinion would probably be higher if I played multiplayer, but I only played through the single-player campaign, which I'd rate about 7/10 at the most.

Honestly, I'm surprised both of you found SC2 mediocre. The single-player campaign (despite the terrible story), IMO, is the best in a classic RTS. I mean, honestly, what's the competition? The missions are fun and varied; there are difficulty settings for replayability; and there tends to be more to do than just "build base->destroy. Most classic RTSs have a series of "build base->destroy" missions, with one or two badly designed control-a-few-units missions. SC2 blows them out of the park.

On top of that, it has the best multiplayer of a classic RTS, the best mod tools, the largest and most active community, and is just pure polish. I'm sincerely confused how anyone could love Starcraft but hate its sequel.

Sure, there are downsides to SC2. The story is a fucking joke, as is its presentation. I actually liked SC1's story and universe, so that was a let down. Also, if you're sick of classic RTSs and prefer the new approaches (such as Dawn of War 2), I can see how SC2 seems overly conservative.

However, if you like classic RTSs, I don't even know what else you're playing. In any case, the modding capabilities and the single player are just leaps and bounds better than the competition, such as Dawn of War, the newer Command and Conquer games, and the Supreme Commander games.

Polished
The hacking and slashing is a lot of fun and more exciting than other similar titles
Boss fights require interesting and varied tactics
The art and scenery is incredibly varied and quite breathtaking at times
All your skills are useful and your character becomes much more powerful over time

Cons:

Always on connection which sometimes causes lag during single player gameplay
No skill trees or skill points
The auction house allows you to gain gear that can make the experience easy

If you can get over cons #1 and #2, this is a no-brainer purchase. The story isn't incredibly involving, but I think it is more so than Diablo 2. Towns are well populated and you can interact with people more than in previous installments. So far I have only played the game on normal difficulty. On normal, I still found myself being overwhelmed and killed from time to time, until my tactics became more fleshed out, then the challenge felt about right — that is until recently when I decided to check out the auction house and found good deals on gear that is vastly superior to what I have. Since that point the game has felt very easy. I suppose this won't be a problem as I progress further or especially if I play on harder difficulties.

how about storyline, music, pacing and atmosphere. I found all that gives immersion flat out mediocre. Might as well wait for torchlight if you want gameplay only.
Come on, they had commercials during NBA playoff matches, why are you so amazed with the sales.
I'm not taking blizzard off the list yet, I'm not a radical guy. But I doubt they'll make a good game when their focus is wrong.

The storyline is definitely poop. The pacing is wonky, as the game takes way too long to get really going. However, the music and atmosphere both seem fine to me. The atmosphere is lightyears beyond Torchlight 1, although, perhaps, TL2 will see some improvement there..?

Originally Posted by killias2
Honestly, I'm surprised both of you found SC2 mediocre. The single-player campaign (despite the terrible story), IMO, is the best in a classic RTS. I mean, honestly, what's the competition? The missions are fun and varied; there are difficulty settings for replayability; and there tends to be more to do than just "build base->destroy. Most classic RTSs have a series of "build base->destroy" missions, with one or two badly designed control-a-few-units missions. SC2 blows them out of the park.

The single-player campaign wasn't that good.

Nearly the first 3/4 of the game felt like nothing more than a very long tutorial. I guess Blizzard thought we would be unable to handle more than one new unit at a time. It wasn't until the last 1/4-1/3 of the game that I finally felt like I was playing with the full deck.

The biggest turnoff to me though was the difficulty. The normal difficulty was an absolute joke. I could basically just crank out units with very little management, and it was an automatic win. I switched to Hard about 1/2 way through, but then some of the later missions were frustrating. Normal should have been labled "Easy", and there should have been another level in-between that level and Hard.